JUDGMENT Mr. Mohinder Pal, J.: - The National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’) has preferred this appeal against the order/award dated 25.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-2 Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’). 2. Mehar Singh (respondent No.1), aged about 50 years, who was admittedly working as a Driver on Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No.HR-46-9577 belonging to respondent No.2, while on duty on 1.4.2001 met with an accident near Pacca Canal at Assandh Road at about 2.00 p.m. and he suffered grievous injuries on his both legs. Due to injuries on his both legs he became permanently disabled to walk and to drive vehicle. He suffered 5 per cent disability in the accident while in the employment of respondent No.2. The Commissioner by taking the disability as 100 per cent awarded compensation to to him to the extent of Rs.2,75,560/- with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of issue of disability certificate i.e. 2.4.2003 on the amount of compensation. It was further ordered by the Commissioner that in case the amount of compensation along with interest is not deposited within 30 days from the date of communication of the award, the amount of compensation would be recoverable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award till actual realization. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case carefully. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Commissioner has erred by adjudging the disability of the appellant as 100 per cent as the workman has suffered only 5 per cent disability. He also argued that the Commissioner has erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of issue of disability certificate and further awarded penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum if the compensation is not paid within 30 days from the receipt of the order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the order passed by the Commissioner is well reasoned and no interference is called for. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the order passed by the Commissioner is well reasoned and no interference is called for. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2008-3) PLR 757 to contend that the disability of the driver was adjudged as 100 per cent who suffered 60% disability as his earning capacity was affected due to the injuries suffered by him. He was not able to drive the vehicle. Therefore, in this case also the disability of the workman has rightly been assessed. 5. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 that the Insurance Company will not only be liable to pay the principal amount of compensation but also interest thereon, if any, imposed by the Commissioner. In K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2008-3) PLR 757 (supra), the Supreme Court relying on the judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, 1976 A.C.J. 141 (S.C.) has held as under:- “Driver suffered amputation of right leg upto knee joint. High Court found that as per Schedule I it amounted 60% of the earning capacity. Held had suffered a 100% disability. xx xx xx xx xx Applying the ratio of the cited judgment to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein has also suffered a 100 per cent disability and incapacity in earning as a tanker driver as his right leg had been amputated from knee. Additionally, a perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would show that the appellant would now be disqualified from even getting a driving licence.” 6. A perusal of the facts of the present case shows that the workman has suffered grievous injuries on his both legs and he has produced disability certificate (Ex.A.24) in which his disability has been shown as 5 percent. The workman has suffered disability on both the legs and cannot drive the vehicle and even cannot do any other work. This statement of the claimant was not controverted by the appellant before the Commissioner. Therefore, the disability of the workman has rightly been assessed as 100% permanent disability. The workman has suffered disability on both the legs and cannot drive the vehicle and even cannot do any other work. This statement of the claimant was not controverted by the appellant before the Commissioner. Therefore, the disability of the workman has rightly been assessed as 100% permanent disability. As noticed above, in this case the Commissioner ordered payment of interest to the workman-respondent No.1 at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of issue of disability certificate i.e. 2.4.2003 to the date of passing of the award and at the rate of 12 per cent per annum if the amount of compensation was not deposited within one month from the date of communication of the award. However, the workman-respondent No.1 will be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of issue of disability certificate i.e. 2.4.2003 till the date of passing of the award and further interest at the same rate from 25.6.2009 i.e. after one month of the award which was given on 25.5.2009 on the amount of compensation in case the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.2,75,560/- along with interest has not been deposited within one month of the communication of the award. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. 7. With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is hereby dismissed. ———————